Chinese UCAV/CCA/flying wing drones (ISR, A2A, A2G) thread

[ougoah]

I'm not sure why people think it looks like split rudders/drag rudders from that angle where it looks much more reasonably just like regular flaperons in an upwards deployed position.

Split rudders have a ventral component, which we do not see in that picture at all.

The ventral component of the split rudders could simply be obscured by the wing. It doesn't prove there isn't a ventral component but the image also doesn't prove it is a split rudder system.

I think the most obvious proof this isn't a J-50/ J-XDS is because the wingtips are too obviously different. There is enough of an angle in the image to determine the wingtip geometry on this aircraft is absolutely nothing remotely close to the J-50's. It also has a very curved lower fuselage compared the the J-50's pretty much known boxy lower fuselage.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

Via x

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1961773529617084519

Kindly ignore that hansm guy. He's either making a bad attempt at joking, or just a plain ret4rd.

 

[AsuraGodFiend]

Imo it's the ch-7

 

[Deino]

Kindly ignore that hansm guy. He's either making a bad attempt at joking, or just a plain ret4rd.

I was more referring to the other one, namely "Kang Xu" ... and yes, it is strange we have no really comparable image of the J-XDS!

I tried to play around with it and look for at least a bit comparable images.

 

[Tomboy]

I was more referring to the other one, namely "Kang Xu" ... and yes, it is strange we have no really comparable image of the J-XDS!

I tried to play around with it and look for at least a bit comparable images.


View attachment 159589

Idk about you but I see two engines, I'm pretty sure CCAs would be single engined

 

[phrozenflame]

Idk about you but I see two engines, I'm pretty sure CCAs would be single engined

Can you expand on this line of thought? Im not discounting it in anyway, but would love to understand more.

 

[Blitzo]

The ventral component of the split rudders could simply be obscured by the wing. It doesn't prove there isn't a ventral component but the image also doesn't prove it is a split rudder system.

I think the most obvious proof this isn't a J-50/ J-XDS is because the wingtips are too obviously different. There is enough of an angle in the image to determine the wingtip geometry on this aircraft is absolutely nothing remotely close to the J-50's. It also has a very curved lower fuselage compared the the J-50's pretty much known boxy lower fuselage.

As I wrote in the other thread, if we cannot prove that it is a split rudder system then we automatically have no reason to argue that it is a split rudder system.

If all we see is a flaperon appearing control surface deflected upwards, there should be no logical reason to entertain the idea that it could be a split rudder system unless there was actually picture evidence for it, otherwise it is putting the burden of proof on trying to prove a negative.

 

[ougoah]

As I wrote in the other thread, if we cannot prove that it is a split rudder system then we automatically have no reason to argue that it is a split rudder system.

If all we see is a flaperon appearing control surface deflected upwards, there should be no logical reason to entertain the idea that it could be a split rudder system unless there was actually picture evidence for it, otherwise it is putting the burden of proof on trying to prove a negative.

On the rudder, I am in general agreement with the thinking that we cannot prove it either way. I pointed out the split rudder is a possibility in response to your post claiming that we do not see a ventral component and implying it isn't a split rudder system.

I think the much more convincing proof this isn't J-50 is the completely different fuselage geometry. If we look at photos of the J-50's belly and compare it to the new aircraft, they are nothing alike. If the wingtips isn't clear enough, the fuselage makes this far too obviously a different aircraft.

 

[Blitzo]

On the rudder, I am in general agreement with the thinking that we cannot prove it either way. I pointed out the split rudder is a possibility in response to your post claiming that we do not see a ventral component and implying it isn't a split rudder system.

It's not so much that I'm saying it can't be a split rudder system, rather I am asking why we should even entertain the idea to begin with.
It's like trying to prove a negative, or trying to entertain the possibility that any aircraft with a Al-31 nozzle might have a TVC nozzle if the image is blurry enough just because "technically we can't disprove it".

The correct logical chain is:
1. We see flaperon like control surface deflected upwards
2. We see no indication of a split rudder system (no ventral component)
3. Thus there is no reason to even consider the possibility of a split rudder to begin with, based on existing imagery evidence

We don't even need to talk about whether it theoretically could be a split rudder or not.

Heck, the problem is that people were confidently saying "look at the split rudder" like in post #756 of this thread or "it has drag rudders" in #1924 of the Shenyang J-XDS thread which were bizarrely confident at how there were split/drag rudders present. My whole point is to ask -- actually no we can't see any split rudders at all, so why is it spoken of as if such a thing were present???

I think the much more convincing proof this isn't J-50 is the completely different fuselage geometry. If we look at photos of the J-50's belly and compare it to the new aircraft, they are nothing alike. If the wingtips isn't clear enough, the fuselage makes this far too obviously a different aircraft.

The proportions of the wingspan and the central fuselage is actually something which makes me feel like it very much could be J-XDS.

This is what it looks like from a perfect rear aspect view (screencap of one of the few videos of J-XDS from months ago), and if we then consider that the new image is one where the aircraft is taken from an angle (thus making the forward section of the portside fuselage more prominent), I think it would be far too bold to suggest that this new image could not be J-XDS.

I certainly won't suggest the new image is definitely J-XDS, but I think it is overreaching a bit based on imagery alone to say J-XDS is not among one of the highly likely candidates for its identity.